From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A37F198005 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:26:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D5D0E085D; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:26:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D142E0850 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:26:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.93] (dynamic-adsl-84-221-236-12.clienti.tiscali.it [84.221.236.12]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lu_zero) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 50B6133DD66 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <512BE50E.9020808@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 23:26:22 +0100 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130207 Thunderbird/17.0.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 4.7 unmasking References: <20130224230301.20ae2d62@caribou.gateway.2wire.net> <20130225205808.GI1672@wloczykij> <20130225221829.698cc908@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f9c8a4b9-ac2f-4198-9d25-a507ed7f6e07 X-Archives-Hash: 5bf1cece6e659ed53e57a7a48a203c90 On 25/02/13 22:32, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:18 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: >> Though people that use -ffast-math / -fLTO / -fuse-linker-plugin should >> be on their own, thus I drop -ffast-math because it breaks my browser; >> but that doesn't mean that those ricer flags should stop stabilization. > > If we're talking about for general use in CFLAGs clearly -ffast-math > isn't something that even could be supported if we wanted to. The > flag is just not intended for general use. And if you stop here everything would be agreeable. > That isn't the same as saying that we can just break it in cases where > it actually is appropriate. Calculating scroll bar movement is > exactly the sort of thing that this flag was actually designed for - > you don't care if it is off by 1/100th of a pixel. Please check your facts. using -ffast-math could do anything from nothing to cause severe security issues. > But, the way to track that sort of a thing is to log those as bugs > against appropriate use within individual apps and make them blockers. No. > I'd consider things like this valid bugs - but whether they hold > things up should depend on real-world impact. I'm not sure how bad > the impact on chromium actually is. Absolutely not. Some code is _designed_ to work w/out caring about ieee corner cases and some is _designed_ to work leveraging them. NOT bug. To reinstate: if you use -ffast-math or other known-to-alter-the-standard-behaviour or, even worst, experimental flags you are on your own. lu